I thought that the class discussion on the Venus Hottentot was great. A lot of people added ideas and insights to the topic.
All of the articles that we were assigned to read on the Hottentot all had one thing in common I noticed. They all focused on the scientists that studied, dissected and classified her body. While this is all important to understanding the way of thinking of the times and crucial to understanding culture, I feel that by focusing on the scientists instead of Sarah Baartman dehumanizes her. It once again makes her the subject of scientific inquiry when we try to figure out why people were so fascinated by her. I know that the personal data on Sarah is very limited, but I feel we can give her back her dignity as a person if we give a little less attention to the men of her time that poked and proded her. I think that Sarah Baartman is just as important as the men who studied her, if not more important.
Erin Pattridge
Erin,
ReplyDeleteCould it be that the authors focus on the scientists in addition to Baartman to take some of the focus off her supposedly "freakish" body? Are the making the point that the body of the scientist is usually invisible--all the we see is the body of the subject or specimen and not the body of the scientist doing the examination? By making the bodies of the scientists visible are these authors exposing the way in which scientific discourse transforms certain types of bodies into freaks?